As the European Commission considers its long-term strategy to cut EU greenhouse gas emissions, Julia Christian says they must reject an unproven and dangerous technology in favour of protecting and restoring natural forests.

Scientists say that the “signal of climate change is unambiguous” in this summer’s blistering temperatures, a stark illustration that time is rapidly fading to limit global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the aim of the Paris agreement on climate change.

In short: carbon is absorbed by growing trees or energy crops, which are burned to generate energy, then the emissions are captured from the smokestack and buried. The theory is that the more energy generated, the more carbon dioxide will be removed from the atmosphere.

In addition to halting deforestation, the European Union must support efforts to allow forest regeneration and sequestering more carbon dioxide, write Heidi Hautala and Carlos Zorrinho.

The European Commission is in the midst of preparing a long-term strategy for reducing the European Union’s greenhouse gas emissions, and its public consultation closes on October 9. The consultation specifically calls for “opinions on technological… pathways”.

We believe that BECCS, particularly on large-scale – which seen as a “saviour technology” by some – must not be included. As we show in a new briefing, placing our faith in this unproven technology is loaded with dangers and uncertainties: for people, nature and the climate.

It compounds one of the EU’s major policy failings in recent years: burning wood for energy on the flawed assumption that it’s carbon neutral.

The scientific consensus that burning wood is not carbon neutral is now overwhelming. Even in a best-case scenario where bioenergy is made from ‘additional biomass sources’, carbon capture and storage (CCS) only captures emissions released from burning biomass. No mention is made by its proponents of the emissions released by the soil when a forest is logged, indirect and supply chain emissions related to biomass growth, transport, refining, capturing and storing, nor the foregone sequestration from the tree that would have grown bigger had it not been cut. These could considerably reduce the positive impact of the capture and storage of the combustion emissions.

So the assumption that BECCS at scale can provide carbon dioxide removals is wrong and at worst it could even accelerate climate change.

Another major drawback is the vast amount of land that BECCS would require.

It’s been estimated that growing dedicated crops for BECCS would require 0.1-0.4 hectares of land per hypothetical tonne of carbon removed. The amount of land needed differs depending on the climate scenario, but one example which would give us a 50 per cent chance of meeting the aim of keeping global warming below two degrees would require the growing of biomass on a land area 1-2 times the size of India (380–700 million hectares). This would have dramatic impacts on food, water and biodiversity, turning our landscapes into monoculture plantations.

So what could work?

The answer is surprisingly simple. Protecting and restoring natural forests would benefit biodiversity and bring climate and social benefits. A forthcoming scientific report commissioned by a group of NGOs including Fern underlines this: revealing that, when coupled with deep emissions cuts and halting deforestation, it can limit warming to 1.5C.

Unlike BECCS, restoring natural forests’ climate benefits are tried and tested. Forests already store large quantities of carbon and they have been sequestering it for hundreds of millions of years.

If they are protected and managed with the full inclusion of those who live in and depend upon them, forests can help us achieve the targets of Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Combined with deep and rapid emissions cuts and a concrete plan to halt deforestation, this ‘natural technology’ should be at the heart of the EU’s long-term decarbonisation strategy.

For more information about the forthcoming scientific report that provides a 1.5C compatible pathway with no reliance on BECSS, contact Julia Christian, forest and climate campaigner at Fern.

EU member states reached a preliminary agreement with the European Parliament on the land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) regulation on Thursday (14 December), closing the trilogues ahead of a plenary vote in January.

Advertisement

Comments

One response to “The inherent dangers of Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)”

It is disgusting how the death of almost one hundred people from forest fires this summer is used by FERN. Just so low, that it can only be compared with the worst kind of extreme left/right populism.

Instead of talking about the need to adapt to climate change FERN proposes the need to reduce emissions, by leaving forests alone. How disingenuous.

The scientific consensus is not there, for those who read the EASAC report. Rather the case-by-case approach is accepted as a rule, which is what the Europe is doing at the moment – a case-by-case management.

Good lobbying for the fossil industry though. Congrats, and keep up with the low moral….